Recent content by Gorgon Zee

Must be different vibes I suppose. Last game I played I found out favorite shows and where people lived and we had a conversation about Firefly. I recall one Living Greyhawk weekend (I think in Fort Wayne) we discovered that of the 6 players at the table, 5 were martial arts black belts and 3...

Hmm. Very odd. For me this is table stakes in a fun game. I hear your argument that it requires the GM to be creative, but in my experience, all systems that do this have some examples or defaults to help. And ... what would be the problem with different tables having different...

Not my experience at all. Last convention I went to (last weekend) the Pathfinder tables all introduced themselves as we were setting up and we'd regularly use player names for queries like "Hey Pat, do you have a cleric you can bring along" or "They're over at the dealer table" or any number...

I got a similar update for Pencil Dice, which I kickstarted in 2015, eleven years ago. I do have a slight, very grudging, admiration for this level of chutzpah.

For the games I run people can use any dice they like. I don't need to see the dice numbers to verify them. If I don't trust people, I will not be playing with them in a long-format campaign. I also do not care if dice are not perfectly fair -- I don't run games where death by random dice rolls...

With that broad definition, I will not argue the point. Essentially anything you do for the game is aimed at play, and so, everything is paramount. I was just hoping for a bit of differentiation.

:-) You stated a bit ago: I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what constitutes "play" in a broad sense, but my overall thesis was directed at "play" meaning actually sitting at the table doing the thing. I probably should have more rigorously defined that. So...

Per the T&R page, this is the right forum to pose this question. It is related to a moderation decision, but honestly I just want general clarification; I am not challenging the moderation. So the sentence I have in mind from T&R is as follows: And in this category I should mention the "no...

I believe the OP has clarified that by "play" they mean "at the table play", which makes sense because otherwise pretty much anything is "play".

Sort of a minor aside here, but I think it's helpful to point out that this is not a core Christian concept. It was first mentioned as a concept by Augustine, but in reference only to deciding how to mete out punishments. Gandhi mainstreamed it in I think the 1920s in his biography as "Hate the...

I pretty much agree with the OP's position, but I'm going to try and argue against it, just to see if there is any runway in that. So I'm going to make my statements a bit more pointed -- so feel free to disagree violently - no offence! Position: Focusing on play is good for short campaigns and...

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. No-one doubts that you can do that -- stating that it "not a prompt" is your error. I also note you are unwilling to become better informed, so there really is little point continuing any conversation with you.

well ... no. Dealign with the second point first, current main belief its that people store information as concepts -- we relate concepts to each other and that is how we build knowledge. GenAI very explicitly does not have concepts -- it deals entirely with expressions. So when you read Lord...

This is factually and technically completely wrong. I'm afraid it also shows that you really have no idea how AI works -- which is fine -- I don't have any real idea how cell reproduction works. But it does mean that we can't take your statements about AI seriously or treat your opinions as...

You are excluding the third option, which is that the result is not actually creative, and that it is simply a non-creative derivative. It’s not that the AI has been creative, or that you have. The result is simply not creative. If you photocopy a piece of art, neither you nor the photocopier...